9 ms·

I think part of the problem is the apparent lack of accountability for violations. I mean, what were the repercussions for any of the violations the OIG found?

by hermitdev 4y ago

I think part of the problem is the apparent lack of accountability for violations. I mean, what were the repercussions for any of the violations the OIG found? Careers need to be ended and people sent to jail over this. This is a civil rights violation en masse and needs to be treated as such. There should be no exceptions; a warrant should be required per the 4th amendment.

vasco 4y ago
[flagged]
- surge 4y ago
  Some people are on TikTok so everyone forfeited their privacy?
claytongulick 4y ago
While I definitely sympathize with your sentiment, TFA is mostly about how confusing and inconsistent the laws are. According to the article, Ron Wyden and several others tried to pass a bill to clarify the guidelines, but it didn't make it out of committee. Perhaps we should write good, clear laws and guidelines before we break out the pitchforks. I may be naive, but I still believe that most law enforcement officers want to do the right thing, and dedicate their lives to helping others. Of course egregious violations should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > I may be naive, but I still believe that most law enforcement officers want to do the right thing, and dedicate their lives to helping others. That is extremely naive, especially when talking about these sorts of federal entities.
  - l33t233372 4y ago
    Can you elaborate? What do you think most law enforcement officers want to do, and what do you think being federal changes about it?
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      “A few rotten apples spoil the bunch” as the saying goes. Due to never facing consequences for illegal actions, a culture of flouting the law and abusing rights has been normalized — for both federal and other agencies. The few “bad apples” rotted their organizations.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      >What do you think most law enforcement officers want to do Get paid large salaries and good benefits without having to go to college, in a country that doesn't respect the trades enough. And plenty of them like the power, especially the "bad apples."
  - supportlocal4h 4y ago
    It can be true and still be problematic. If a small city has 100 LEO, and 15 are bad apples, the overwhelming majority still want to do the right thing. Unfortunately 15 is still a very big problem. If they can break the law with impunity it can rightly be said that the police force is doing more harm than good. Even outnumbered 6:1 the bad apples have a larger effect on the community. Unless the 85 good apples focus their attention specifically on the 15 above all other crime. If they enforce the law against the 15 until the problem goes away, or until the ratio is 30:1 and it is really hard for the 3 bad apples to collude... well then maybe. No organization is perfect. But the rule enforcers have to be held to a higher standard.
    - Enginerrrd 4y ago
      I actually think you're missing the mark on bad apples by an order of magnitude. I think 1-5% bad apples is not only more likely, but I think you perhaps underestimate the effect that this smaller percentage can have if allowed to operate in a permissive environment.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  > I still believe that most law enforcement officers want to do the right thing It's been legally determined that "the right thing" is 1. protection of property 2. protection of the status quo (i.e. the rule of law regardless of what the law is) 3. does not include the safeguarding of the welfare of people (see DeShaney v Winnebago and its impacts). You say "some bad apples" - the tree was selectively bred to make anemic, putrid fruit.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
Remember, we have a supreme court that recently decided sniffer dogs are acceptable grounds for searches, despite them being worse than a coin flip. Our court system doesn't care about "fair." It cares about punishing.
- 8note 4y ago
  It's likely that there's no law saying that the tools for "acceptable grounds for search" have to on average increase the probability of finding something The courts are doing they're job wrt the law
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    @dang I'm not sure what the correct approach is to ask about this - my comment on this thread was flagged. I believe flagging it was inappropriate, as there wasn't any rule violation, just perhaps an opinion that is unpopular (support for law enforcement officers). I don't mind being downvoted for comments that are unpopular, but I think inappropriate flagging is harmful. What redress is there?
    - nsajko 4y ago
      I'm guessing users flagged your comment, not mods. The redress is for other users to "vouch" for your comment, as I have done right now. For contacting Dang, see the "Contact" link at the bottom of the front page.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    If dogs are on average worse than a coin flip, than just stopping people randomly (with a coin/dice) would be more honest, fair, and cheaper.

supportlocal4h 4y ago
I would guess that 95% of the people I know exceed the speed limit 80+% of the time they drive. In fact, just suggesting that it is ok to drive the speed limit in the left lane of a U.S. freeway would draw near universal condemnation. Imagine an individual who actually obeys the speed limit 99% of the time, exceeding it only by mistake. Imagine they are late to a once in a lifetime event. I think it almost impossible for the average do-gooder to contemplate the mental struggle of whether it is ok to--just this once--go 3 or 4 mph over the speed limit. Normal people wouldn't even hesitate. Now imagine you are a concientious LEO driving a marked vehicle. There is practically no speed at which you will be punished. Every normal person is doing 5-10 over the limit. Some tap their brakes when they see you. But you can do 20 over the limit and never tap your brakes even when you see another police car. In fact, you rationalize, you all by yourself will impede traffic if you don't drive at least 10 over. How do you not develop a sense of exceptionalism? Even if you are a good person? And, of course, how do you presume to pull another cop over and give them a ticket? Now extend that beyond speed limits into every aspect of law enforcement. Is it reasonable to expect 80% compliance of the very best officers? No? So why should it surprise anybody to get <50% compliance from 15% of officers? Especially when you get <50% compliance from 80+% of non-officers. The by-the-book officer is great for a comic movie. We all cheer for them in the theater. But on the street in real life they are intolerable to 99.9% of the public. Happily we all cut each other some slack. I think 1-5% percent is naive, or doesn't include the 10-20% grace we automatcally ignore by necessity in life.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Constitutional protections are VASTLY different from motor vehicle violations.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    In your mind, yes. You likely have never been in a position where violating constitutional protections is useful to you at all. In the mind of a police officer, both are impediments to where they "need" to be. Also, the sanction for violating the constitution is actually lower than the sanction involved in speeding. There are ridiculous ideas like "qualified immunity" that allow cops to get cheap malpractice insurance that covers them, and their unions generally force departments to pay cops who are on leave - the worst case is a small loss of overtime pay.

kkielhofner 4y ago

Generally agree but I think it's important to make a distinction between federal law enforcement and local. Local police departments have wildly different training and qualification requirements. Most famously generally not requiring a college education, having the right to pass on hires/fires because they score too high in IQ tests, etc. At the federal level college is often a requirement up to including law degrees and PHDs[0]. One thing to look for at that link - the starting salaries and requirements are wild. The relatively low pay and high requirements likely either select for people with a strong sense of service or power crazed maniacs. Most federal agencies other than the FBI have a single, consolidated training program at FLETC[1] (the FBI has their own in Quantico). Additionally, they generally have higher standards and regulations for everything from behavior to investigations and overall professionalism. This story includes multiple call-outs from agencies tasked with overseeing federal law enforcement (however effective they are). At the local level in many cases the only "oversight" is some citizen review board with practically no power or a useless internal affairs department. In short, to be a "local cop" you can generally decide to be one (for whatever reasons), go to the police academy a short drive from where you live, and be walking around with a gun in a few months. It's very easy and low-effort. That's not the case at the federal level. At the federal level you also don't have the whole "get fired or resign from one department, keep your certification, and get a job in the next town over" situation - which is ridiculous and basically serves as a funnel and retention system for bad cops. LE is people too and you have the normal distribution of humanity (more or less). However, the job tends to attract people with a longing for power and that's problematic too. There's also the issue with LE generally, but especially local police, where they have a tendency to get extremely cynical and jaded. I don't see myself as some "bootlicker" or whatever the current derogatory term is but I have been on a few ride alongs and spending hour after hour dealing with people at their worst can really wear on you - and I have roughly 24 hours of cumulative life experience observing this. As one cop said "for starters, everyone lies to you constantly". Frankly I can't imagine doing it day in and day out. At the risk of going way off topic here, I can sympathize with how jumpy these local cops can get. Being by yourself, on some random dark street, pulling someone over, and walking up to the car cold is surprisingly scary. It's the little things - I was in the passenger seat and I was told I could walk up to the car with them but only if I walked around the back of the police car and came up to the drivers side behind them. You know, just in case the driver decides to put the car in reverse and pin me between the cars. There were a few situations that were dicy enough for me to realize "I'm the only one without a gun or body armor". Most local police departments have ride along programs and I encourage everyone to do at least one. It's easily one of the most eye opening experiences I've ever had. [0] - https://www.secretservice.gov/careers/special-agent/qualifications https://www.secretservice.gov/careers/special-agent/qualific... [1] - https://www.fletc.gov/ https://www.fletc.gov/

KennyBlanken 4y ago

If you have 100 LEO and 15 are "bad apples" and the other 85 provide a permission environment (as another commenter put it), then you don't have 15 bad apples, you have 100 bad apples. At some point it became acceptable for the "good apples" to just stand by and do nothing watching the "bad apples" do things like beat the shit out of people, plant evidence, lie in their reports, and "testi-lie". If the majority of cops are good: * why are the good cops not fighting to get rid of the bad cops? * why are the good cops fighting things like federal standards and databases that track bad cops to keep them from getting re-hired? After all, the good cops wouldn't want to work with the bad cops, right? * why are bad cops finding it easy to get re-hired? The good cops wouldn't want the bad cops to continue being cops, right? * why are the good cops engaging in work slowdowns in the wake of protests over the killings of unarmed black men, and calls for shifting non-violent incidents to other people who are less confrontational and better trained to handle things like mental health emergencies? After all, if it was just the bad cops, they wouldn't have any problem with the protests, and not having to handle situations they're poorly trained for, right? It goes back to the parent comment about A Few Good Men. "YOU NEED ME ON THAT WALL!" The interesting thing about the work slowdowns is that it's showing us that we really don't actually need cops nearly as much as we seem to think we do.

JackAndJack 4y ago
We can soon expect and in most place and in some places it already is in effect, that number to be close to 20 to 30 instead of 15 because all good officers left or retired in droves due to defund the police movement. Most tech people here do not realize what conditions these officers work in. If they are in shady part of town, they will get cursed, get called every name just for being there. They have to be on their heels for any kind of violence at all times. On top because of woke leaders they are not allowed to use force because they know, police chief and mayor will not have their backs when they use force. Good one's who left are not coming back and good one's which were once planning on joining the force so many have changed their plans.
- smolder 4y ago
  > all good officers left or retired in droves due to defund the police movement. No. Your premise here is nonsense. Show me some evidence that protests caused "good officers" to leave law enforcement.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> the overwhelming majority still want to do the right thing. If a small city has 100 LEO and 15 are "bad apples", and that situation persists, it persists because a substantial (especially as weighted by influence) majority of the other 85 view protecting the 15 as more important than "doing the right thing", from keeping quiet, to supporting union rules and institutions which insulate the bad actors, to...

brnaftr361 4y ago
I don't know that it's fair to characterize it as "protecting" so much as a good faith argument in someone's favor. I think most people would extend that favor to their peers, not *just* police. I've had plenty of debates with opponents that talk about rape stats: they're pretty high, and assumed to be undercounted, and predominately it seems like it's men perpetrators and female victims. Now I'm not a rapist, and *to the best of my knowledge* nobody I know is a rapist, or a perpetrator of domestic violence, etc... But these are also things that can and do happen behind closed doors and are secreted away and swept under rugs — fair point. So when someone makes broad-strokes accusatory statements about men as a whole, acting under that assumption, I defend myself and my peers because me, my friends, my family are all being called to task over something I have *faith* we were no party to. And I've heard ballpark figures from some of these interlocutors that indicate as many as one-half of all men are perpetrators of the aforementioned crimes or their kindred malefactions. And I think this kind of extension of trust is fundamental to society and civilization. I think it is also a considerable hazard as a population grows. Bystander effect but at scales inconceivable to any individual.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > Now I'm not a rapist, and to the best of my knowledge nobody I know is a rapist, or a perpetrator of domestic violence, etc... But these are also things that can and do happen behind closed doors and are secreted away and swept under rugs — fair point That's the difference between you and the police. The police do have knowledge of the crimes of their co-workers. They stand by and watch it happening. Often there is body cam footage of it happening. If you knew one of your friends was a serial rapist, and you've watched them raping people, and you had video evidence of it, and you did nothing, you'd be the problem. The "Bystander effect" is a solvable problem. That's what training is for. Training is how doctors, EMTs, and countless others are able to intervene in a crisis. There are even specialized programs designed just for police. One example is EPIC (http://epic.nola.gov/home/ http://epic.nola.gov/home/) and another is ABLE (https://www.law.georgetown.edu/cics/able/ https://www.law.georgetown.edu/cics/able/). If an officer isn't adequately trained to do their job, then they have no business wearing a badge. We should be holding police to much higher standard to the rest of the population.
  - brnaftr361 4y ago
    What I'm really intent on getting at, albeit through a roundabout way, is that such institutions will always be susceptible to abuse, and that they hadn't ought to reasonably exist in the capacity they do operating under the pretenses they have offered. They're neither properly capacious to hold themselves to account, nor is the public suited to the matter (look at the US political system), either. Trust and defer is a hazard, but we're all culpable in it's maintenance and that is why and that is how the faux lacquer of the Rule of Law is maintained because most can yield that faith, they're willing to defer their authority to someone else be it the police, the FBI, CIA, et cetera. As to the argument, there are a million and one ways to justify and rationalize behaviors, some convincing some not. The question then becomes one of faith. Some aspects of ones willingness to advocate in the favor of another are fraternity, I won't deny that. And some are due to shared experience. I would say the largest fraction of it is necessarily that faith just because very often we lack the omniscience we so often act as if we're in possession of. We'd also do well to remember that these folks have elected to enter into a position where they're frequently endangered, or at least the probable threat of danger exists frequently. Often times they're veterans trained for combat and not peacekeeping. They also interface with other people in ways that you and I will seldom ever have to in situations we'd hardly ever imagine. Imagine pulling over a drunk driver in a several thousand pound vehicle. There's about a thousand things that could go on there. Is the driver deranged? Is he armed? Is he going to resist arrest? Will he decide to run me over? As to training: I disagree. There is always room for error, period. Men are never machines, as such they should never be trusted with mechanical rectitude. I can make a long list of a wide variety of charlatans with conflicts of interest in pedaling their wares, myriad training programs it's quite the industry and often it's snake oil with one or two poorly constructed studies or apparent correlation, unreliable, unreplicible — but they sell. I could see it being a point of plausible deniability though. Trained expert police dispatching someone sounds a whole lot more acceptable than police murdering someone. But really it's the difference between an annual refresher training composed of a slide deck that nobody pays attention to and mocks, and no annual refresher training. But nobody is going to take responsibility.